The termethnotaxonomy refers either to that subdiscipline withinethnology which studies thetaxonomic systems defined and used by individualethnic groups, or to the operative individualtaxonomy itself, which is the object of the ethnologist's immediate study.
For example, in manyWest African languages, theperceptual world ofcolor isclassified into the principal categories "Red," "White," and "Black" (finer gradations being secondary). The range ofwavelengths that an English-speaker callsblue would be a subcategory of "Black."[1] (See alsoBlue–green distinction in language)
The set of categories of familial relationships evinced by the ethnic group'skinship system is another ethnotaxonomy. An example of this might be theHawaiian kinship system, where all members of a generation of the same sex are referred to by a single term. Both the relationships termedmother andaunt in English fall into the sametaxon "Mother-Aunt". This does not mean that the users of this taxonomy are confused about the concept "Birth-Mother," only that it is a subcategory.
Conversely, an ethnotaxonomy such as theSudanese kinship system or that used inancient Rome, where no two relationships have the same denotation, may show much more granularity than the English system. Thus the relationship calledaunt in English is not fundamental in Latin, but eitheramita "Father's Sister" ormatertera "Mother's Sister" must be chosen. Latin and Sudanese are called a "descriptive systems," and Hawaiian is called a "classificatory" system, but this terminology is English-centered (seeLewis H. Morgan), the difference being one of degree, rather than kind.
Categories of plants, "Useful" and "Harmful," etc., are yet another well-known example. Indeed, in recent years there has been a vogue usage of the term ethnotaxonomy limiting it toethnobotany andethnopharmacology, because of the "rediscovery" of the medicinal and commercial value of plants disclosed by examining the botanical ethnotaxonomies of lesser-known cultures.[2]
Animal folk taxonomy in theKalam language ofPapua New Guinea has been extensively studied by Ralph Bulmer and others.[3]
Starting in the 1970s, several folk taxonomists suggested that folk taxa (and their names) displayed characteristics that suggested that they belonged to cryptictaxonomic ranks,[4][5][6] and some recent ethnozoological studies still support the existence of such ranks.[7] However, the existence of such ranks has been contested bysystematists,[8] including some specialists ofbiological (taxonomic) nomenclature.[9][10]
 | This article relating toanthropology is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |